Absolutely Nasim. Ever since university where I had access to all the film goodies and development equipment. Mirrorless medium format is too good to pass up, and the increase in IQ as a trade off in speed etc of my Nikon, is one I’m willing to make. I’m not going to make a decision either way – Fuji, or Hasselblad – in a hurry. It’s just too expensive to get wrong, and at this point, for me, they’re evenly balanced. The image quality out of the Fuji is very desirable, but the smaller size of the Hassellblad in regard to its use as a travel camera is also very desirable. The IQ of the Hassellblad isn’t to be sneezed at either, but the buggy nature of that system might be something I don’t want to be bugged with myself.

Moving from Nikon, love lot of features built into the camera. Great long exposure camera with no need for extra remote. Has built in exposure time goes to 200minutes. Built in Interval meter is a nice feature. Like you said 4:3 is awesome for panorama I shoot lot less frames at 50mm. Metering is awesome for long exposure too when 10stop and CPL added to the camera. So far one thing I miss is OVF for astrophotography, haven’t used much but EVF sucks for night photography. I removed the viewfinder and use only display for my landscapes. The tilt screen two way tilt is nice for vertical shots.

I get Otus quality on a FF with 32-64 lens. Dropped tonne of weight from my backpack as well.

I haven’t tried mine for astro yet, but I don’t know if I want to, since there is no fast glass aside from the 110mm f/2 for the camera yet. A wide-angle lens with a large f/2.8 or larger maximum aperture would be ideal for astro…

I tried with Nikon 50mm Art with Novoflex Adapter, focusing stars is so hard with the stupid EVF system. Sorry I’m not a fan of EVF yet and this is my first EVF camera. It takes forever to get it right and I’m going to avoid adapting glasses for Astro and use my trusty D750 until D850 arrives.

I’m going to put my GFX 32-64 on star tracker this weekend hope it sky helps. Other than that I don’t have single complaint with this camera. Now I removed EVF from this camera for my landscape work.

No doubt a great camera, but as of now, a FF system is much more effective, not just cost-effective. Bright lenses and dreamy bokeh? FF. Auto focusing-stacking for huge depth of field? D850 give you that. Ultra wide lenses? FF.

I came from Mamiya 7 with a trio of 43mm, 80mm, 150mm, about 15 years ago. It’s a 67 camera, that’s even bigger than 645, the so called “Full size” medium format nowadays. Yes, the details were mind blowing from drum scans, and the lenses are sharp right to the corners. I still have the body and the lenses. They are kept in a cabinet behind a glass next to my headphone collection. My work-horses nowadays are a XT1 and a D800E. The increment from GFX from FF is like APS-C to APS-H, that’s just half a step. Is it worth sacrificing native long tele lenses, ultrawide lenses, big aperture lenses, OVF, speed, value retainability, ….? If it’s an increment like from APS-C to FF, then maybe…. After you have the GFX, you still gonna bring the FF body along for what the GFX can’t do. The fact that it’s pass the FF category and now fall within the Medium Format category, doesn’t mean it’s something very different. I think the internet is misleading us in this.

By the way, just a bit of my background. I’m a cultural photographer. I would trade any photographic qualities like resolution, high ISO performance, AF accuracy………. for practicality. The camera that I can get out of my bag faster, and let me capture that god damn photo at the precise moment is the camera I prefer. Here’s my website www.zeissiez.com.

Certainly some good points ZEISSIEZ, BUT, this is just the fist iteration of the GFX. Once Fuji comes out with the 60-80MP (a true 16-bit) version, you will finally see a much larger difference between the two formats. I’m also pretty sure, that the next iteration of this camera will be more video-friendly, more lenses a little bit more speed. I’m like you, waiting with my D810 until I can really see a large enough difference to make the leap over to the GFX system. In the studio where I work, we regularly use a Sinar digital technical camera, the Hassy H5 and the Leica 007. Of all these cameras the Leica + Sinar have the most 3D film-like look to their images. This is because the CMOSIS sensor is a true 16-bit sensor. Using Rodenstock and Leica glass doesn’t hurt either;) I think going forward, the 35mm Full Frame folks will have to make 16 bit sensors to squeeze a little more out of there already over taxed sensors.

I got to shoot the GFX with 100 f2 at one of the recent Fuji events. The DOF is extremely shallow and the dark lighting made it a little difficult to get focus right but it is a great combination that rivals some of the best.

You are right, very few people actually need a medium format camera for their work. This is a niche camera designed for very specific needs. A full frame system is going to give one a lot of different options that do not, and probably never will exist on medium format (fast AF, super telephoto, etc).

Going larger has its benefits, which is why people use them. For most people, a phone camera is good enough. For most photographers, 1″ sensor is good enough. For photographers who want better image quality, an APS-C sensor is good enough. For those who want to step up from there and have a camera that can deliver even better high ISO performance and high resolution, a full-frame sensor is good enough. And those who want to step up from full-frame, have the option to go medium format. You know where I am going with this…

Medium format is a niche product with a very low market adoption, so it will never be able to compete head-to-head with a DSLR in terms of features, lens selection, etc. But saying that full-frame is better than medium format (as some photographers argue) is similar to saying that a smaller and more practical car is better than a larger gas-guzzler. Both have their uses. For everyday driving, a small and practical car would be ideal. But if someone likes going off-road or pulling a trailer, they will need a more capable vehicle. I bought the GFX 50S because it does certain things better than my Nikon DSLRs can, plain and simple…

Nasim, I’m sure you have good reasons to own the GFX. I know it’s a case of a Porsche 911 vs a Pagani Zonda. I’m not arguing that the Zonda should not exist at all. Or 100MP digital back systems should not exist in studios at all. It’s just that the 911 can be much more practical, while the speed is more than enough for everybody except maybe Lewis Hamilton. But there are many people who don’t know the gain is not big in resolution, dynamic range and high ISO performance compared to the D810, the GFX is not real full-sized medium format like the Phase system. It’s just like moving up from APS-C to APS-H, unlike from APS-C to FF which the gain in quality is more easily seen and felt. I hope people don’t hop in for the sake of “medium format”. The GFX is such a small system, in a small market segment, we don’t know in 10 years it still exist. There are of course people who know what they are doing, and have legitimate reasons to go for the GFX. Ya, by all means. I’m a big Fuji fan, ever since the Original X100, I hope they do well.

ZEISSIEZ YES! It certainly depends on the situation and your needs as an image maker. In our product photography studio we would love to get a 100+MP camera! The reason we would like one is the fact that we would utilize our heavy/cumbersome technical camera less and eliminate the need for time consuming focus-stacking techniques. All we would have to do is step back a few centimeters/inches from the subject to get more depth of field, and then crop in the massive image in post. That would be a time+money saver thing that we would like very much. Unfortunately 100MP sensors are tremendously expensive at this time.

I feel you. I am currently in great struggle to decide between Nikon D850 and GFX. I have had my test with D850 (which is the best DSLR ever made, by a huge margin), and currently wainting for GFX (very hard to get your hands on one in my country). What I like about FF DSLRs is obviously the speed, and versatility – and I know GFX will not match those. I also love the DR and high ISO capabilities of D750, but that I know GFX will easily match and out do.

What I do not like about FF DSLRs is the uncertainty of AF (especially outside the center point), limited AF coverage, and how is easy it is to get mirror slapped. Yes, you get faster lenses, but they are useless, unless you can focus them exactly where you want to. What I have found out is that my XPro-1 gives me way higher hit rate than D750. I am expecting same from GFX, we will see. And I love the EVF, although I also love the OVF – depends on the situation (and the reason why I truly love XPro-1, because I can change between both with quick flick of a switch).

The other thing I do not like about FF DSLRs (Nikon in particular) is that the fast lenses and wide angles feel smushy wide open. 85/1.8 and 105/1.4 are enough good for resolution of D750, the rest I have tested (except Sigma ARTs, which fail even more on the AF) I have found inadequate for very critical work or any kind of cropping – which by my definition is looking the image on 4K television or A3+ print and not notice the unsharpness. What I have seen from GFX, although the lenses are dimmer, they will give me the quality and bokeh I want for my portrait work.

And where as wide 3:2 is good for landscapes and some other stuff we like to view on our TVs, I have found out that I always end up cropping my portraits to either 5×7 or 5×4 on post processing. I need to throw lot of resolution into waste. E.g. where as D850 and GFX in practice have about the same amount of pixels, 5×4 crop (6880 x 5504 or 37.8mpix) on D850 will be wasting way more pixels than 3:2 crop (8256 x 5504 or 45.4mpix) on GFX. And to think about it, 5×4 crop on GFX is 48mpix (7744 x 6192) compared to 37.8mpix on D850! Thus, I am concluding that 4:3 is far better aspect ratio for a sensor in practice, if they have the same landscape resolution to begin with (obviously this is not fair requirement) – especially if you like to shoot portraits.

My current plan is to migrate to XPro-2 for fast and light work, which should be good enough in AF-C to replace DSLR, and GFX for those works where I wish to get the highest quality without caring weight or speed. However, I am bit worried that I am making a costly mistake, so I will probably go a while with D750 and GFX and see if I need to leave D750 to be the speed machine.

My bottom line to this discussion is that there is no single camera that would do everything well. FF DSLRs will gives us unbeatable speed and versatility, but they cannot always satisfy the most demanding eyes. And even if we do not print so much anymore, all our viewing displays are getting sharper and better. When we have +60″ 8K OLED TVs to display our pictures, we will truly start appreacating the 1:1 level resolution GFX et al. can produce.

Thanks for the review. I am going to seriously consider the Fuji GFX 50S, but before I do, I want to see what the Nikon D850 will offer and if it will be worth the difference in cost (let’s hope the D850 stays relatively close to what the D810 is, in terms of cost). My hesitation with the Fuji GFX 50S at this point is the limited lens line-up, but it sounds like more glass in on the way.

I would like to see the differences in print quality between the Fuji GFX 50S and Nikon D850, specifically for large prints (24X36 and up). That will be another deciding factor that I will have to consider in choosing to go with this system, or go with a D850. The resolution differences between the rumored 45MP D850 and the 50MP Fuji GFX 50S is miniscule at best, I don’t think the MP count will matter at all in terms of that, but the full frame vs medium format sensor size could exhibit a noticeable difference at larger print sizes, if examined up close.

Thanks again for the review, it was very informative to say the least.

Nasim, will you be purchasing a Nikon D850, or will you stick with what you already have from Nikon, such as your D810?

Jason, if you are going to be comparing full-frame to medium format, then I would recommend to stick with full-frame – it is far more practical and it will always be, especially when it comes to investment.

You shouldn’t be judging a MF system by its resolution either – 50 MP is the current sensor technology, but in a couple of years, MF is probably going to be closer to 100 MP in resolution, so there is always going to be a difference, since the sensor is physically larger. Don’t buy medium format because you think you need it – only buy if you feel that you are maxed out with a full-frame system. Resolution is only a small factor to consider in the grand scheme of things.

As for the Nikon D850, if there is little or no difference in dynamic range performance, I will most likely stick with my Nikon D810. But I am not going to judge early – I want to see what specific camera and firmware features the D850 will deliver over the D810 first.

I just wish all these 50MP “medium-formaters” would pop true 16 bit sensonrs in their cameras like the Leica S does. In our studio, we use Hasselblad medium format, but prefer the look of the true 16-bit LeicaS 37MP. It is the first time since Sinar that a digital image has the 3D and warmth that rivals film. I hope fugji goes 16 bt on their next Sony sensor. Cemosis Europe should be doing their sensors!!!

Love your review as usual. I got my GFX recently, it’s a totally new and pleasing experience, the IQ, DR, ISO performance, colour depth, operate like my XT-2, work great with my Godox lighting, etc, all impress me. Though I’ve used D750 for years, and also love using XT-2, GFX with 32-64 (I have one GF lens only) is perfect for studio portrait and landscape. And yes, shot panorama with it is really impressive, the details in the image blow me away.

I tried it out first with my friend’s GFX, simply plug in my nikon lens (58 and 85), and I took similar shots with my D750, I can tell the difference by looking at the camera LCD. Of course, it surprise me further when I compare the jpg on my iMac.

With my GFX, I enjoy searching old medium format lens on eBay, they are cheap (comparing with GF lens) and I can use some of my Nikon lens with little or acceptable vignetting. My only issue is looking for a good wide angle lens that work on GFX, GF 32-64 is great but is not wide enough for landscape, and GF 23 is too expensive. Nasim, do you have any suggestion?

Very interesting review, Nasim, even if I’m not in the market for a MF camera. (I would be, if money wasn’t an issue, if only for the fact that I enjoy learning to master new tools.)

All nice photos, but the landscape images in particular were very pleasing to my eyes. The two on the Summary page have a marvelous depth to them in both detail and colours. Actually, I was surprised to see such a large depth of field at f/5.6, even though the close foregrounds weren’t included. I guess my brain needs re-calibration to translate the bare numbers (f-stop & focal length combinations) of the MF world to what I know from the APS-C world…

Out of intrest: do you approach your landscape shots differently with MF in terms of aperture selection, focus stacking, etc? If I’m not mistaken, the smallest aperture you used here on a landscape was f/11 – wouldn’t MF allow even smaller apertures before diffraction softening kicks in?

Regarding your question, since there is nothing in the foreground and the landscape was shot at infinity, I could have easily shot it at maximum aperture…the only reason why I stopped down, was because I knew that the lens did better at f/5.6 than wide open. But if I had anything in the foreground, then f/5.6 would have been insufficient for sure and I would have to shoot at a much smaller aperture.

And yes, you do have to approach landscape shots a bit differently with MF. Depth of field is a larger concern with MF, so one has to pay attention to a chosen aperture, camera to subject distance, etc or parts of the image will look blurry. Also, shooting discipline becomes more important, since it is even less forgiving at pixel level.

Looking at the same canyon images in the XiD-50c and GFX 50S, I see a considerable color difference. It appears that these were taken at about the same time. Is the difference due to post processing or how these cameras handle color?

Jim, always good to hear from you my friend! The differences mostly had to do with white balance, which I have just changed a bit in updated the article, so that they look closer. Post-processing is somewhat similar, but there is one key difference – the Fuji GFX 50S is using the “Provia / Standard” color emulation in Lightroom, whereas Hasselblad is using the “Camera Standard” and these definitely yield different colors. Still, there is always going to be a difference in color between different cameras, even without any post-processing…

It would be fun to rent one and play around with it for a weekend. I’m just curious as to why Fujifilm came out with a medium format instead of a full frame sensor and if they ever intend on introducing a full frame sensor.

They are very unlikely to have a full frame. They did the mini-MF because there are fewer players out there and the IQ jump is more substantial from APS to mini-MF than APS to FF. Also consider the other players: the avoid Canon and Nikon entirely and are really only competing against 2 other players. So every reason to do that and no reason to run after the 800lb gorillas who already own the full frame market.

I agree with Neil’s comments – there is no need for another competitor in the full-frame market. It would be tough to compete there, since there are plenty of systems with a great selection of lenses already and it would take time for Fuji to catch up – too much risk for a small company.

The maximum 1:2 macro magnification of any current lens in the system (and that, on a sensor that is larger than full-frame 35mm or aps-c to begin with), means that the Fuji is only capable of imaging a field that is approximately 88mm X 66mm or larger, a limitation that matters for some of us. Please consider testing the Fuji’s performance with one or more of the following: 1) some achromatic close-up attachments 2) extension tubes, if they exist for this camera 3) an adapted Canon EOS MP-E 65mm 1-5x macro lens, which could be really versatile on the Fuji, if it provides sufficent coverage 4) other macro lenses from full-frame 35mm, and/or medium format, that can be adapted and image at greater than 1:2 ratio Thanks.

Fred, for serious macro work, you would probably be better off with a Fuji bellows adapter (sold separately) + a larger format macro lens that can provide large enough image circle. I am afraid that something like the Canon MP-E 65mm might not suffice and you might end up with vignetting issues, or lack of lens resolving power. I tested the GFX 50S with a few Nikkor lenses and some had severe vignetting problems – even my Nikon 105mm Macro showed vignetting issues, so it is not just wide-angle lenses that might be problematic.

I am sorry, but I have little interest in macro to be able to sufficiently test the GFX system for this particular need…

Thanks for the reply, Nasim. At least I know not to wait for you to potentially evaluate the Fuji’s macro abilities, and I can turn to other forums if I decide to more seriously consider the camera for such use. And thanks for noting that the Nikkor 105 macro vignettes.

Thanks for a fantastic appraisal of the GFX. I bought mine on April 1st, I agree with nearly everything you say. However can only assume the strap supplied with your GFX is different to mine. The quality of mine is pitifully inadequate so much so that it had started to fray when only 1 day old, to be fair Fuji replaced it with a new one which is just the same. The strap lugs are even worse they seem to imitate the design of the Hasselblad straps used years ago which clip on the camera and off again in no more than 1 or 2 seconds. But simply are no where near the quality. My strap requires the user to undo the buckle and remove the strap then the tiny plastic square can be removed followed by the lug itself. I remember well a £50 Zenith from years ago having a leather strap. I spent over £8,000 on my GFX and got a strap that is now simply not usable as the plastic squares have been lost. In the UK the GFX brochure clearly states the vertical battery grip includes the charger, it does not and costs a further £100.00. I have contacted Fuji and my dealer on several occasions, in my case they are not interested. Yes its a fantastic camera, throw the strap away and the rest is faultless in my view. I use the BlackRapid strap its fantastic quality and very well designed, but its not so good when I have the vertical grip fitted.

Strange that you have such issues with the strap on your GFX 50S and I wonder if the European model works any differently than the US model. On my GFX 50S, the strap comes off very easily and I don’t have to undo anything. It snatches back on fairly well, although I cannot say that the mechanism is very well done – if you don’t pull the strap and make the little metal piece come down fully (which sometimes you have to manually assist), the strap might fail to keep the camera from falling off. Also, what plastic squares are you referring to?

Ronald, not sure what degradation of focusing is discussed, but I have been able to test all three lenses with a very precise target in a lab environment without any issues with the latest firmware. The camera focuses very well and its precision is very high from what I can see.

Thank you Max. We do not want to put caption info into the slideshow mode, since captions can be very big or span multiple lines, especially when we describe an image. Ideally, it is best that you download the images and view them on your computer – even resized images on the web browser do not look good, since the browser applies automatic resizing depending on your monitor resolution.

As for Sigma SD Quattro H review, I have so much gear to test and review + all the travels and workshops that I am not sure if I can get to testing that camera system this year. It is encouraging to see that Sigma is finally providing DNG support in their cameras – that should have been done at the time the cameras were released.

I was tempted but thought that if I really wanted to try out MF I could just buy an old film camera and some 120 film.

I’m one of those who believes that Fuji’s dalliance with the mini-MF format means that they’ll put less effort into the XF format. The slowdown of features, lenses, etc. kind of reflects the change in “focus” for them. I think it’s a nice system from what I’ve seen but, try as I might, I don’t see a reason for most people to buy into any of these systems. For those who do need it then it’s a great time to be around. I do wander how many will end up with buyer’s remorse?

Hi Neil, I did get an old Mamyia 645 Super film camera with three primes. After more than half a year I can tell you that it is not comparable to handling a Fuji GFX. Handling a film – SLR camera is a hustle. The Mamyia is heavy slow, and loud. The GFX is fast, light weight and relatively discrete. This opens up a whole new field of usage. You do get a feeling for the change in dof, that is true. But that’s about it. Besides that, film medium format cameras are tremendous fun and offer wonderful image quality. But that an entirely different story…

For a while I thought about getting a Fuji 645zi as it looked fun to use with MF. It’s relatively portable and all that but the usability reflects the era it was produced. It would be great if someone produced an easy to use MF film camera similar to that one. Might be a fun change of pace.

Neil, I seriously doubt that Fuji will slow anything down with the X-series cameras, since that’s where they make the money. I think GFX development will be much slower in comparison. And you are right, most people don’t need a medium format system. That’s why I focused on that topic quite a bit on the first page of the review.

If possible could you do a review on tethered shooting these 2 cameras along with a Phase One in the studio? I have found this to be a weak point with the GFX and while it is simply incredible for all my other uses, the tethered part has really been a disappointment. The Phase one uses capture one and is incredibly responsive, while the GFX has proprietary software can be coupled with Lightroom. Not a mature solution yet and well worth knowing about for those of us doing studio work.

Wfp, I am sorry, but I do not have a Phase One camera to test. I don’t do studio shooting, so tethered shooting is not something I am particularly interested in, but from what I know, there is a Lightroom plugin that is supposed to deliver images from the camera.

Sorry, but I have way too many issues with that article. DPR writes good stuff, but that one is for those who want to look at test charts and equivalence. That’s not why I, or many others bought the GFX…

Jj, the Fuji GFX 50S was never supposed to have a leaf shutter and I am very happy that it doesn’t. Hasselblad’s X1D has a leaf shutter, which means slow lenses, no options to adapt third party lenses and bokeh that always looks stopped down…

At least for me mid format has 2 requirements -1. Open platform and 2. leaf shutter. Phase one/mamiya does it for me, but again, it is up to a personal preference. I guess if i did landscape /architectural than it would make sense, but i rather invest in a system which will give me a freedom of leaf and non leaf lenses and ability to keep on upgrading my backs (and i can use it everywhere i feel like I will benefit from mid format) – for everything else my D810 will be a workhorse until 910 comes out and i will replace it for 850 :) – but again, that’s just me.

Jj, I might be wrong, but I think that the GFX 50s takes many of Hasselblads’ H lenses with an adapter. Remember, in the not-so-distant past Fuji helped design and manufacture MF digital lenses for Hasselblad. Sure they are probably not as great as your Schneiders’ but they are still very solid. The 120mm is gorgeous.

Carles, I haven’t really lost interest in Sony FE system – I am currently playing with the Sony A9 and will be using it in my upcoming trip along with a few Sony G Master lenses. I would not buy a Sony for my own use, but for reviewing and testing, I am definitely open.

I would not want to use a Sony A7R II in place of my Nikon D810 or Fuji GFX. If Sony releases a Sony A9R, then it could be interesting.

Hi Nasim, As always, a nice review. I read this mainly to see what it offered in terms of image quality and it certainly looks very high. Despite that, I have no need for this type of camera and feel it would be lost on so many photographers. I am so happy with the image quality of my APC and even 4/3 cameras that I see little difference or need for the type of photography I mainly do. AF speed and tracking is so much more important. I can imagine that for landscapes and perhaps portraits the quality difference is enough to entice some of those photographers (like you), but the audience is very narrow. Note that this is no different then the audience for cameras like the D5, 1DX MkII and Sony A9. As they say, horses for courses.

i read your enjoyable review for curiosity and information ,,, and niot because im i n the market for small medium format

i enjoy my xpro2 xe2 pen f and a compliment of excellent native panasonic olympus and fuji x lenses and also a lot of nikon afd and ais 35mm lenses with a metabones speedbooster adapter and hollow adapters both for fuji x and m43

that said thsi 1441 sq mm sensor fuji camera looks like an amazing performer with strong performance throughout

What Fujifilm has achieved in only +6 years, is amazing. The GFX50S is the best example of this. And maybe compared to the high resolution Canon & Nikon’s you could conclude from this review by the samples shown that there’s not so much real benefit in purchasing this camera vs the FF competition. But I fully disagree – it’s more a ‘I don’t know what’ kind of feeling, but the GFX is delivering with his native glass pictures OOC that are nothing less than breathtaking, very accurate colours and showing a detail/sharpness that is from another world – this is really not even close to what any DSLR will provide you! Just disappointing that the major DSLR-manufacturers are capable to upgrade their camera’s to a very high standard, but it are the third party lens companies that let them really shine: Zeiss Otus, Sigma Art. From my own experience quite a bit of the native Nikkors really show issues in lens curvature, CA wide open, corner performance and even in true resolved detail/resolution on the D8X0 range. Some primes like the 50mm’s are a real shame on a D800/810. Diffraction start taking its toll around F8.0 (the GFX doesn’t seem to suffer from this problem). Due to the GFX’s firmware 2.0 the AF performance is excellent, again something that only Fujifilm is doing all the time in new firmware releases – keeping their systems up to date while providing new, better features. Another giant step forward is Fujifilm’s HSS support in both the X-series and GFX.

Thank you very much for this comprehensive and clearly understandable review even for people like me who are new in the world of digital photography. I am anxiously awaiting your lens review including the new ones, you promised. I would also appreciate to learn more from the mentioned bellows I have not heard of elsewhere. If you happen to use adapters for view cameras and different adapters (there are many competing by now even with tilt and shift) for other non-Fuji lenses, please post that very useful information as well. Again thank you very much and have a good year 2018!

Thank you very much for this comprehensive and clearly understandable review even for people like me who are new in the world of digital photography. I am anxiously awaiting your lens review including the new ones, you promised. I will have to limit myself to one or at the most two lenses. I like portrait but other fields should be possible as well. Therefore your lens review would be very important for many people like me with a tight budget, I would also appreciate to learn more from the mentioned bellows I have not heard of elsewhere. If you happen to use adapters for view cameras and different adapters (there are many competing by now even with tilt and shift) for other non-Fuji lenses, please post that very useful information as well. Again thank you very much and have a good year 2018!

Even if Nikon went to 50mp, and a larger sensor, it would be the same as the GFX. Today, the Nikon is vaporware, where the GFX is available, and moved past the v1.0 blues.

I don’t need fast lenses. My shooting is done at f/5.6 to f/8 for max resolution and contrast. I don’t need fast autofocus.

What I DO need is exceptional quality at ISO 6400 for hand work. I shot 6×7 and 4×5 film for decades, and appreciate the quality. In digital, I appreciate max sensor and pixels for making quality crops as needed. I do appreciate the EFCS in both my D810 and the GFX 50S.

If the GFX sensor has further improvement over 50mp in the next gen, I would be seriously interested.

Comment Policy: Although our team at Photography Life encourages all readers to actively participate in discussions, we reserve the right to delete / modify any content that does not comply with our Code of Conduct, or do not meet the high editorial standards of the published material.